Summary
stating that a municipal policy requiring tow companies to maintain tow yards within one-half of a mile of the village's borders does not violate General Municipal Law § 80
Summary of this case from Loyal Tire Auto Center v. Town of WoodburyOpinion
May 22, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is dismissed.
The petitioner was one of three companies licensed by the respondents (hereinafter the Village) to tow disabled, abandoned, or impounded motor vehicles for the Village's police department. The requirements to qualify for such a license have changed over the years and, in January 1993, the Village amended its licensing policy to require towing companies to maintain tow yards within one-half of a mile of the Village's borders in order to qualify for licensing. The petitioner's tow yard is approximately 1.7 miles from the closest Village border. Accordingly, the petitioner commenced this proceeding, arguing, inter alia, that the amended licensing policy violated General Municipal Law § 80 because it unlawfully discriminates against nonresidents. The Supreme Court held the challenged amendment to be invalid.
Because the petitioner failed to submit a timely application for a 1994 towing permit, its claim that such an application would have been denied based on the location of its tow yard is speculative. Indeed, the petitioner's towing license for 1993, the first year the regulation was in effect, was honored despite the nonconforming location of its tow yard. Thus, the issue presented is not ripe for adjudication, and the petitioner lacks standing (see, Weingarten v Town of Lewisboro, 77 N.Y.2d 926; American Ins. Assn. v Chu, 64 N.Y.2d 379, cert denied 474 U.S. 803; Town of Islip v Zalak, 165 A.D.2d 83; Phelan v City of Buffalo, 54 A.D.2d 262; 43 N.Y. Jur 2d, Declaratory Judgments and Agreed Case, §§ 19, 140). In any event, were we to reach the merits of the petitioner's claim, we would hold that the challenged amendment neither requires residency nor discriminates against nonresidents of the Village. Thus, it does not violate General Municipal Law § 80 (see, e.g., Wharram v City of Utica, 56 N.Y.2d 733; Mathys v Town of E. Hampton, 114 A.D.2d 842; Village Auto Body Works v Town of Hempstead, 89 A.D.2d 612; Richard's Serv. Sta. v Town of Huntington, 70 A.D.2d 905). Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.